THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
(To TUB EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] STR,—Before the tide of political strife rushes in, I am tempted to ask you to let one who has been debarred by circumstances from taking any part in the discussion of the last few weeks to make one or two remarks on the Ecclesiastical situation.
Practical Churchmen of all schools are, I think, indebted to you for the firmness with which you have hold your readers to the real question,—" Will you find a modus vivencli for Ritual- ism, or will you break up the Established Church P"
There is no need to waste words in showing the depth and extent of the agitation which prevails. It is not a clerical panic. Indeed, with an experience of two-and-twenty years— which includes the " Essays and Reviews " excitement--I am inclined to say that the present heavy strain on the clerical mind has been mot with exceptional composure, except by ono or two Bishops, and that the note of the moment is rather one of quiet decision, which is not without its own significance. But the influence of the still pending conflict on many lay Churchmen, especially the younger, and the humbler, more particularly those who owe personal religious influence to Ritualism, is such as no wise religious ruler would prolong for a day, if ho could help it. And the moral effect is probably worse still on those who perhaps believe themselves in the act of winning a contro- versial victory.
It is more to the point to try and make some attempt to "answer the question, "What is to be done ?"
1. Only one negative reply. No considerate man can fail to
feel for the perplexities of the Bishops. But that does not make it right or prudent to seek a seeming relief by advocating episcopal autocracy. Morally, historically, legally, practically, the one utterly inadmissible solution is any attempt to make the individual Bishop's opinion or taste operative and binding throughout each diocese, as matters stand. Churchmen, indeed, owe not the least of many services to Dr. Liddon for the example of his brave appeal to principles, and his willingness to abide by them. Bishops, constitutionally elected and com- missioned, and acting constitutionally, are, no doubt, the natural arbiters and custodians of Christian interests. But an Anglican Ultramontanism is growing up, which makes it necessary to enter a protest against confounding the ideal and the possible with the actual. Real recurrence to first principles, and even a disposition towards constitutional reform, will bring the now disaffected clergy to the Bishops' feet at once. But they cannot let the modern prelate first coax them to their knees 'by hold- ing the language of the Apostolic Fathers, and then silence them in the terms of the Privy Council judgments and the decrees of Lord Penzance.
2. The first and immediate need is that on which you, Sir, have so steadily insisted,—that a system be set up of recognising different types of Ritual observance in different parishes, and even in the same parish at different hours ; and of giving the widest liberty to malcontent minorities to provide services to their own liking for themselves. The Archbishop has acted on this principle in a case which came before him, on appeal, from the diocese of Lichfield; and it is capable of general application. And it is the proper responsibility of our rulers to draw out a working scheme to this effect,—it is not ours.
3. But the Ritual controversy is only a symptom, after all. As usual in human affairs, great questions arc being raised from the starting-point of matters indifferent in themselves. The broad fact is that the present generation of Churchmen are finding the existing system of the Established Church unwork- able. Thd clergy are the natural spokesmen of this feeling, but they arc nothing more. It is not a clerical question. Every one recognises a new condition of things, clue to the coincidence of a hundred modern influences. Face to face with those, the burden of the abuses, anomalies, inconsistencies, and scandals of the Establishment is more than its responsible officers can bear. They appeal—they have been appealing for forty years, for a century—in varying, but rising tones, for consideration. The time is come, they now say, for some serious reconstruction. Six years ago, the energy—the folly, if you will—of some of them compelled attention. Authority was roused at last. They had asked for elbow-room, room to turn round, and were answered with a threat of being " put clown," and with the summary jurisdiction of a brand-new Parliamentary Court to enforce a confessedly doubtful law. The result we see.
It is impossible to put a remedy in a sentence. For one, I have no vindictive desire for the repeal of the obnoxious Public Worship Act. Amendment would content me, if it would do any good. But for the Bishops to refuse to sot it in motion, is to repeal it. And I own I see nothing for it, as things now are, but the vir- tual or actual repeal of the Act of 1874. Together with this, there is no question that the Final Court of Appeal in ecclesi- astical causes needs either to be recast, or its functions strictly limited to questions of pure law, if the submission of earnest Christians is to be claimed, to its decisions. Meantime, how, when, and by whom is all this to be taken in hand ? Who can expect Parliament, however willing, to busy itself, at such a moment as this, with the revision of the hundred statutes which go to make up the ecclesiastical status quo I' Who can wonder if politicians are irresistibly attracted by the idea of using a sharp knife to the knot, once for all P Can any one doubt that if a single resolution would disestablish us, it would have a fair chance of being carried this Session ?
4. A smaller, but perhaps hardly less urgent and influential, reform is probably in the power of the Spiritualty itself, with the consent of the Crown,—the reform of the existing Houses of Convocation. It would do much to tranquillise the minds of anxious Churchmen, but it has never been seriously attempted. I might say much more of the official conduct of the question, but I refrain. The Bishops might, at all events, begin with their own House, and make its meetings a reality, instead of a farce. At present, they transact the most important business in private caucuses at Lambeth ; and even close the doors of the Convocation House when they have a real decision to take, only letting in the reporters to hear one or two well-worn orators move foregone resolutions in perfunctory speeches, diversified by sharp scolding of their more practical brethren for writing letters, instead of listening to them. .
It is these things which provoke constitutionally-minded Churchmen past patience. And they are worth mention, be- cause they suggest the reflection that even now we might hetp ourselves materially. It is most inspiriting to see that at least one Bishop, the Bishop of Ely, is able to take a statesmanlike view of the situation, and does not shrink from facing serious questions in a constitutional spirit. The conviction is gaining ground, I thankfully believe, that only by falling back on those constitutional principles (to call them by no higher name) which the Christian Church originally taught the nations, and which it is the special interest of the Christian laity to revive, can either the repressive centralisation of European Popery be usefully broken up, or the confusion and fatuity of Anglican Erastianism and individualism be successfully corrected and composed.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
